Fleming and Fleming (Review of Costs)

This matter concerned a review of costs assessed by Registrar Stevens on 17 November 2008, brought before Murphy J. The dispute centred on the assessment of costs, specifically concerning Item 476 of an amended itemised bill of costs, and the amount that was "taxed off" by the Registrar.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Registrar had erred in her assessment of costs, particularly in relation to the allowance of a reading fee for counsel. This involved determining the appropriate interpretation of the relevant court rules and case law concerning the circumstances under which such fees are permissible in a party and party taxation.

Murphy J's reasoning was guided by the principles established in *Saaethoff v Saaethoff* and the relevant court rules, specifically clauses 6.35(1) and 6.51(4). The court emphasised that reading fees are generally not allowed in party and party taxations unless the case is unusually complex or the amount of material is particularly large. The court noted that in an "affidavit court," reading is inherent in every case, and therefore, reading fees should be the exception rather than the norm. The court distinguished between costs allowable on a solicitor and own client basis and those on a party and party basis.

The court ordered that the assessment of costs be varied. The husband was to be refunded a specific amount, with a further potential refund contingent on the Registrar having used a lower figure than $2301.25 as the amount to be taxed off in respect of Item 476. The notation on the assessment was to be amended to reflect the total refund amount payable to the husband.